Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 01:27:15 AM |
|
lol at the opcode jokes, only on bitcointalk. More!
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 01:34:31 AM |
|
The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.
With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".
See I think this is interesting. This is the kind of mistake you'd expect a n00b to make. But look at his post history. He's obviously clever enough to get this. Is this pure misinformation?
|
Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 01:46:48 AM |
|
The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.
With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".
See I think this is interesting. This is the kind of mistake you'd expect a n00b to make. But look at his post history. He's obviously clever enough to get this. Is this pure misinformation? You're gonna have to explain this one to me because I don't know enough about LN. I thought LN did in fact transact on its chain and somehow settle on the main chain later.
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 01:57:11 AM |
|
The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.
With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".
See I think this is interesting. This is the kind of mistake you'd expect a n00b to make. But look at his post history. He's obviously clever enough to get this. Is this pure misinformation? You're gonna have to explain this one to me because I don't know enough about LN. I thought LN did in fact transact on its chain and somehow settle on the main chain later. go home, jonald. I'll get your jacket for you.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 02:17:46 AM Last edit: January 20, 2016, 02:30:30 AM by jonald_fyookball |
|
The lightning network is no different from an altcoin.
With the "lightning network", bitcoins are transferred to another chain (lightning network altcoin chain), then transactions are performed on that chain and then at some point, transferred back into bitcoins for settlement. It shouldn't be called the "The Bitcoin Lightning Network", it should be called "Lightening Coin".
See I think this is interesting. This is the kind of mistake you'd expect a n00b to make. But look at his post history. He's obviously clever enough to get this. Is this pure misinformation? You're gonna have to explain this one to me because I don't know enough about LN. I thought LN did in fact transact on its chain and somehow settle on the main chain later. go home, jonald. I'll get your jacket for you. I just read the summary of LN, which is more easily digestible than than white paper. So, it may not be 'another chain' but its another layer. I can see how its not at all accurate to call it a coin. lol. anyway Carlton,i'll give you a 3/10 for witty retort and 0/10 for contributing anything useful here. Here's an interesting article BTW. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/debunking-the-most-stubborn-lightning-network-myths-1444837807The article isn't entirely accurate though. For example, Pieter Wuille was certainly not a small block advocate in 2013, at least from that post where he recommended 10MB-100MB blocks.
|
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 02:23:39 AM |
|
My favourite part: Myth #9: Because of the Lightning Network, the block-size limit will not need to be raised.
The Lightning Network is set to enable a virtually unlimited amount of transactions between two connected users, while only recording two transactions on the actual Bitcoin blockchain. As such, the Lightning Network is sometimes hailed – either implicitly or explicitly – as the savior of Bitcoin that will solve all scalability issues.
While the Lightning Network could, indeed, potentially help solve the scaling problem to a large extent, it is quite an exaggeration to claim that no further block-size increase will be needed at all. If Bitcoin does grow to its full potential, and the Lightning Network is used by billions around the globe on a daily basis, these users will still need to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain in order to open and close channels once in a while. If that happens, it’s safe to assume that 1 megabyte blocks will be too limiting. NB: I am not in favour of a contentious hard fork.
|
Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 02:28:13 AM |
|
Remember this comment to genuinely useful Bitcointalker BitUsher: .. I was open to using bitcoin classic in the past now I won't even consider touching it with my experience talking with their supporters...
awww..billy gonna take his ball and go home? ![Cry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cry.gif) Now, lets just get it straight: You people have been trying to take the Bitcoin Ball home with you for months now, yet everyone keeps telling you "not your ball, just do the going home part". Irony much? Let me tell you again: go home (WITHOUT the ball, jonald, put it down again please...)
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 02:31:29 AM |
|
Irony much? Let me tell you again: go home (WITHOUT the ball, jonald, put it down again please...)
1/10 for wit and 0/10 for substance. You're trending down brah ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 02:35:31 AM |
|
Irony much? Let me tell you again: go home (WITHOUT the ball, jonald, put it down again please...)
1/10 for wit and 0/10 for substance. You're trending down brah ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) You're in serious trouble if that's how you're measuring. Go.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
Preclus
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 05:45:23 AM |
|
I just read the summary of LN, which is more easily digestible than than white paper. So, it may not be 'another chain' but its another layer. I can see how its not at all accurate to call it a coin. lol.
The full paper is here: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdfTwo parties get together and create a "channel", an address in the bitcoin block chain that requires 2 signatures to perform transactions. Both agree on the amount in the channel and when done doing transactions outside of the bitcoin blockchain, both agree to sign the transaction to withdraw from the channel. This is no different from both parties putting the coins into an alt-coin where each have half the key to the alt coin, doing transactions there and then converting back into bitcoin with both keys when they are done. I am simplifying here (it isn't half-key, it is multi-sig, etc.), of course, to look at the big picture. The individuals promoting "The Lightening Network" essentially are just promoting their own alt-coin. The full title of the paper includes the words "Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", not "Scalable On-Chain Instant Payments"
|
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 07:32:42 PM |
|
i think that's completely unwarranted; it's the same currency, and the same transactions even; they just don't instantly hit the blockchain (but are secure nonetheless)
Well, you can say that changetip is bitcoin too then. The bitcoins only are transferred offchain. And you don't see a difference why you would not trust changetip with your monthly earnings? Yes, ln is safer but still there is a group who demands you, no tries to force you to use their new system. They don't take out the artificial restriction that hinders the bitcoin network and present their own network as solution. You clearly don't get it: Changetip own the private key with "your" money: not BitcoinLightning Network doesn't hold your private key, you hold it: BitcoinUnderstand? Well, guess you don't get my point then. You are right about the private keys but that only means changetip potentially can scam you. That is not the case with ln, but still you have to take your bitcoins and load them up in another system to be able to play with virtual bitcoins there. Until you close the payment channel. I don't see that many will be happy to bind their bitcoins in some payment channels. But we will see.
|
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 07:42:53 PM |
|
Well i guess people always will get cautious when people in power decide to not fix something and instead try to force an alternative solutions on the people. I think it's pretty normal to react that way since such a behaviour normally means that something fishy is coming with it. That has not to be the fact but the reaction on such actions are still he same
Bitcoin does not scale well without a better infrastructure. Anyone with a proper IT background should know this by now. Who are you to decide what a 'primary' solution (in your case, block size) and what an 'alternative' solution is? There is nothing fishy coming with LN. The only 'fishy stuff' that could come, comes due to the delusion of knowledge and understanding of LN. What's so hard in seeing that bitcoiners use bitcoin and want to use bitcoin. If someone offers "Let's not use bitcoin but an alternative way outside of bitcoin, only finalizing on bitcoin." then clearly that is the alternative suggested. It's funny that the claims of the amount of worldwide possible transactions that can be done with LN instead with bitcoin, would not even work without the bitcoin blocksize being raised. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Well, this is the bitcoin community and bitcoiners normally share the vision of bitcoin becoming a worldwide currency. Now some people in power clam we have to leave bitcoin in order to use their system and deny the way to fix the real bitcoin. The reaction is awaitable for sure.
There is nobody 'in power'. The 'forkers' tend to use open source and multiple implementation as argument. Due to Bitcoin being trustless, open source and based on consensus there can be nobody 'in power'. They are just people that have stated how they feel about it. I might leave Bitcoin as well if a political fork becomes a reality. Well, for most bitcoiners it really feels like developers are the one in power who block. The devs that want to change something left or had to left. So the feeling of not having them acting in your interest comes up of course. And of course the feeling arises that they have the power and that it is no democracy. Even when, what do you have against the fork when you claim there is no one in power? It shouldn't matter to you because it would be the normal way things go. Or would you prefer someone decides that no fork is allowed to happen? The same way you have to buy into payment channels and bind your bitcoins in the system without being able to freely move them. That's the first hurdle to overcome when it comes to convince people of using it. In fact i think it will be pretty much impossible to move a considerable amount of people to move to ln.
'Buy into payment channels'? You have to put your bitcoins into otherwise you can't act with lightning network. If i'm wrong let me know. Well, you can say that changetip is bitcoin too then. The bitcoins only are transferred offchain. And you don't see a difference why you would not trust changetip with your monthly earnings? Yes, ln is safer but still there is a group who demands you, no tries to force you to use their new system. They don't take out the artificial restriction that hinders the bitcoin network and present their own network as solution.
Changetip is very much Bitcoin (the currency). LN is similar to changetip, except that LN is not a single party that can run away with your money, or go bankrupt, or hold your coins hostage. After a certain time period you get your funds back. Right. Still, you have to give your coins ouf of your hands. And i believe the payment channel partner has to agree when you want the coins back before it's time. So waiting for your own coins to come back means you have to give them out of your hands. They might still be safe but bound. maaku> And for the 2nd, changetip is custodian. Payment channel networks don't involve giving your coins to some 3rd party. Plus they come with cryptographic proofs and auditability, etc.
You clearly don't get it:
Changetip own the private key with "your" money: not Bitcoin Lightning Network doesn't hold your private key, you hold it: Bitcoin
Well, that's is one way of looking at it (still better than his). Apparently people think 'off-chain' implies 'not direct in relation to mainchain/Bitcoin'. Opening and closing the channel is bitcoin. Everything in between seems to be more like a virtual bitcoin circulating.
|
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 07:57:13 PM |
|
lightning network as a free choice. great. bt forcing people to use lightning and only letting corporations have access to the real bitcoin network.. not great
Nope, that's literally not the proposed Lightning model at all. I thought you were doing lots of research? Only on other topics? He means that with adoption of cryptocurrencies and broader use of ln, it would be inevitable that only big corporations could access the bitcoin network anymore at all. The 1mb blocks would be full and transactions very expensive. What will be left then? Banks and big companies. Great idea for a currency that started to free the people from the power of banks. [/quote]
|
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 08:01:19 PM |
|
Y so sensitive??
Because what you implied is stupid. Use Google next time for simple questions. Blockstream stands to gain nothing from LN (or barely anything) as a company. I might be wrong but are the investments into ln a myth? If not how do you think these investments are planned to coming back, probably with profits? Though maybe i was informed wrongly. lightning network as a free choice. great. but forcing people to use lightning and only letting corporations have access to the real bitcoin network.. not great
They aren't forcing people. Actually, they can't force people. You are right, they don't say "Use LN or die". They practically say "Use LN or leave." since when bitcoin became unuseable because of too high fees then there would be LN as alternative, right? I guess they really don't like that the way more simple solution already exists. but forcing pruned blocks without witness by default. and only letting segwit implementations have the special parameter to enable archival mode.. not great
You're wrong again and I got answers directly this time. Actually your post makes so little sense that they could barely interpret it. Sipa: the initial implementation will download, verify, and store all witnesses the only thing that changes is that it introduces a future mode where witnesses are kept less long than other block data maaku But the consequences of that are the same as with any other soft-fork. E.g. pre-P2SH clients don't understand the P2SH outputs
For non-upgraded nodes read this.
most things on the face of it have great potential.. but then when you research more and read more about it. you start to see the negatives that come with it too
There's another category: coming up with negatives that aren't real ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fa.disquscdn.com%2Fget%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fimages.rapgenius.com%252F69cectk8otwjxnkywfh108ynr.314x314x10.gif%26key%3DhfAA-wRnoc1ve-X6SmSM8A&t=665&c=ClKNSqYEZJ2AxA)
|
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 08:21:12 PM |
|
What's so hard in seeing that bitcoiners use bitcoin and want to use bitcoin. If someone offers "Let's not use bitcoin but an alternative way outside of bitcoin, only finalizing on bitcoin." then clearly that is the alternative suggested. It's funny that the claims of the amount of worldwide possible transactions that can be done with LN instead with bitcoin, would not even work without the bitcoin blocksize being raised. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) You are still using Bitcoin. LN is Bitcoin. You are just transacting off the main chain but you are transacting Bitcoin. Also, LN would work at 1 MB it is just the amount of TPS would be lower (much lower than Visa) but still much higher than what we have today. Even when, what do you have against the fork when you claim there is no one in power? It shouldn't matter to you because it would be the normal way things go. Or would you prefer someone decides that no fork is allowed to happen?
I'll just shortly answer this without going much into detail: A) 2 MB blocks are not safe ATM; B) Handing over the commit keys to a much smaller group of newbie developers (except Gavin). You have to put your bitcoins into otherwise you can't act with lightning network. If i'm wrong let me know.
You don't 'buy in' into anything. You are not buying altcoins. You are locking your Bitcoin so that you can transact with that amount on LN. This process takes 3 confirmations right now (might be changed), so ~30 minutes. Right. Still, you have to give your coins ouf of your hands. And i believe the payment channel partner has to agree when you want the coins back before it's time. So waiting for your own coins to come back means you have to give them out of your hands. They might still be safe but bound.
The only time that you will wait for your coins is if/when something goes wrong between the second party that you're transacting with. Opening and closing the channel is bitcoin. Everything in between seems to be more like a virtual bitcoin circulating.
No, it is not. You are still transacting the very same Bitcoin, it is just that you are transacting them off the main chain. Is this so hard to comprehend? Once you are done with the off-chain they get settled.
I might be wrong but are the investments into ln a myth? If not how do you think these investments are planned to coming back, probably with profits? Though maybe i was informed wrongly.
There is only 1 employee from Blockstream working on LN AFAIK. The Bitcoin community does not even deserve this. You are asking me how a company is going to ROI or get profit? A company that I'm not involved with? That's not my concern and if I would guess it would be 'custom made' sidechains with 'technical support' or something of that sort. However, my guess could be completely wrong. You are right, they don't say "Use LN or die". They practically say "Use LN or leave." since when bitcoin became unuseable because of too high fees then there would be LN as alternative, right? I guess they really don't like that the way more simple solution already exists.
No, they aren't and no there doesn't exist a 'simple solution'. 2 MB blocks are dangerous at the moment because a transaction could be created that would take too long to validate (10 minutes or more). SegWit gives us a similar amount of added space and thus the tps will rise similarly as it would with 2 MB blocks.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 08:41:45 PM |
|
2 MB blocks are dangerous at the moment because a transaction could be created that would take too long to validate (10 minutes or more).
This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...
|
Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
|
|
|
Preclus
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 08:50:42 PM |
|
No, it is not. You are still transacting the very same Bitcoin, it is just that you are transacting them off the main chain. Is this so hard to comprehend? Once you are done with the off-chain they get settled.
Consider the following: - two parties create a multisig address in the bitcoin blockchain (the "channel" address) - the two parties transfer their bitcoins into that address - the two parties transact back and forth, via email, any amounts they want to transfer between each other - when done transacting, the two parties settle in the bitcoin blockchain using the multisig address The "Bitcoin Lightspeed SMTP Network". Unlimited transactions, no fees, transactions occur immediately, the bitcoins are "locked" and both parties must agree to get any "locked" bitcoins so the transactions via email are actual bitcoin transactions. Would you agree? The emails they send each other saying what bitcoins transactions they are making are, in fact, actual bitcoin transactions even though they don't appear in the bitcoin blockchain because they refer to bitcoins in the blockchain? If instead of using email, they used an altcoin like doge, would you say the doge transactions were also bitcoin transactions because the doge represented bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain?
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 08:55:03 PM |
|
2 MB blocks are not safe ATM; Why do you say they are not safe?
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 09:00:03 PM |
|
This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...
Why do you say they are not safe?
Because it is possible to construct a transaction that takes too long to validate (10 minutes any more). I've said this multiple times. There's a proposal that aims to fix the quadratic scaling but it has not been implemented yet, meaning it won't be included in 0.12. -snip-
Your initial post mentioned 'dogecoin' which made no sense. "both parties sign a transaction to transfer the coins out of that [bitcoin] address and into a multisig dogecoin address"
This would only make sense if 'dogecoin' was a pegged sidechain. The "Bitcoin Lightspeed SMTP Network". Unlimited transactions, no fees, transactions occur immediately, the bitcoins are "locked" and both parties must agree to get any "locked" bitcoins so the transactions via email are actual bitcoin transactions.
Would you agree? The emails they send each other saying what bitcoins transactions they are making are, in fact, actual bitcoin transactions even though they don't appear in the bitcoin blockchain because they refer to bitcoins in the blockchain? If instead of using email, they used an altcoin like doge, would you say the doge transactions were also bitcoin transactions because the doge represented bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain?
you can send unconfirmed transactions over email, sure. i don't think you can meaningfully/usefully send them over the dogecoin blockchain; if you did, it would just be putting data on the dogecoin blockchain not making use of its coins/crypto per se
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 20, 2016, 09:04:16 PM |
|
This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...
Why do you say they are not safe?
Because it is possible to construct a transaction that takes too long to validate (10 minutes any more). I've said this multiple times. There's a proposal that aims to fix the quadratic scaling but it has not been implemented yet, meaning it won't be included in 0.12. The fact you've said it multiple times doesn't make it true. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
|
|
|
|